How far would you go with accessibility?

[AutisticCuckoo]

I think I need to dig a bit about this AAA thing ... But Tommy, I thought you guys have pretty sky touching knowledge in these things, even you are telling things like '... skills and resources that go far beyond ...'

The others might have, but my knowledge about accessibility is far from sky touching. I've learned a bit, but the more I learn the more I realise I don't know.

Making a site accessible and usable for some types of disabilities is fairly straightforward. For visual impairments and motor impairments, there are a few things to think about (text equivalents, meaningful link texts, clear visual feedback for keyboard navigation, etc.). When it comes to other disabilities, like dyslexia, autism, and cognitive disabilities, things get more complicated.

For AAA compliance you need to know quite a lot about about these things, and others. You need to be able to create video clips with the important content translated into sign language. You need to have graphic representations (pictograms) of the content for those who cannot read text at all. You also need to write text that can be read by anyone, including those with severe dyslexia or cognitive disabilities. You need to understand those disabilities to create visual designs that do not hinder their understanding of a site, but help it.

For A and AA, much (but not all) of the required skills are technical. It's basically what you do in code. For AAA you need to know a lot more about different disabilities. You need to have language skills that go beyond what we learn in school. You need to understand how, e.g., people with Down's syndrome interact with a web site. And so on.

Among other things, I remember reading that in html we use capitals where as in xhtml we use smalls.

You don't have to use capitals in HTML. HTML is case-insensitive for the most part, while XHTML, being XML, is always case-sensitive.

We don't leave a tag unclosed and single tags like <br> of html becomes <br /> in xhtml.

Yes, but those are only the superficial differences. There are far more fundamental ones. I recommend that you read the XHTML vs HTML FAQ. This issue is off-topic in this thread, anyway.

[kigoobe]

Hmmm ... a very good article Tommy.

[C. Ankerstjerne]

kigoobe
There is nothing wrong with using capital letters in HTML (even though it is usually considered best practise to use lowercase letters). You are not allowed to close stand-alone tags (e.g. HR, BR, IMG, LINK, META, etc.) in HTML, though. This, however, has nothing to do with forward compatibility - it is simply a matter of following the specifications.

The reason why you shouldn't use XHTML if you don't know what the difference between XHTML and HTML is, is that you won't be able to use any of the benefits (since you don't know what they are). To use your car analogy, it is the equivilant of you not knowing the difference between a car and a bicycle, while building one of them (remember, you are the constructor, not the user). Since XHTML doesn't work in IE, HTML is the best option for Internet websites.

KLB
Because XHTML is XML, you are only allowed to use lowercase letters.

[kigoobe]

Yes Christian that's true, here I am the constructor, not user. Hmmm ... well said.

It's true that more important is to write 'valid' and 'correct' codes in strict mode, be in HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0. For some reason I have developed some likings towards the xhtml markup over html, like using <br /> and selected = "selected" or coding in small, sort of things, don't know why, no technical reason probably ... probably because of some earlier articles and books that I read that was telling this is the more 'correct' way of doing things. And changing habits without a strong reason is a real pain ... (I'm trying to quit smoking for long, for example ... he he)

Also, given that IE is not supporting xhtml yet (may be IE8, well, I hope) and not knowing all the advantages of using xhtml makes more sense going for HTML4.01 rather. But then, I am also excited about xhtml 1.2 that's going to re introduce things like the target attribute (or CSS3, whatever comes earlier) ... well, that's an interesting debate. But I agree with you that if I stick to xhtml, I will have to learn more about this, and its advantages and limitations. Tommy's article that he has linked above is a good one to start with.

[AutisticCuckoo]

Also, given that IE is not supporting xhtml yet (may be IE8, well, I hope)

According to Microsoft, IE8 will not include support for XHTML.

[zcorpan]

Any page that validates in HTML 4.01 Strict should validate in HTML5.

No, it is in fact impossible to have a document that is valid HTML 4.01 Strict and HTML5 at the same time. You will at least have to change the doctype. (Unless HTML5 changes to make the HTML4 doctype conforming, but that would just be confusing...)

The reason MSIE is able to support XHTML and will be able to support XHTML5 is because it simply treats XHTML as tag soup and applies HTML rules.

IE doesn't support XHTML, and it is impossible to support XHTML5 if you treat it as tag soup. XHTML5 requires XML treatment.

[C. Ankerstjerne]

(Unless HTML5 changes to make the HTML4 doctype conforming, but that would just be confusing...)

Not to mention the fact, that it would make it quite difficult for user agents to know which specification the document follows.

[seobeglobal]

I do pretty much the same as Tommy for most of the sites I do. I went a little bit further with my own site and added a high contrast alternative stylesheet and user-defined accesskeys.

yes, i have a friend that do the same as you and tommy

[KLB]

No, it is in fact impossible to have a document that is valid HTML 4.01 Strict and HTML5 at the same time. You will at least have to change the doctype. (Unless HTML5 changes to make the HTML4 doctype conforming, but that would just be confusing...)

Well obviously you would have to change the doc type.

My point was that if one validates to HTML4.01 Strict specifications and makes the best possible use of currently available semantic markup then when the change is made to HTML5 the code should still validate. At least from a machine perspective. Granted one might need to add a few more semantic tags to take advantage of the newly available semantic structure.

As best as I can determine HTML5 is not eliminating any elements or attributes that are currently allowed under HTML4.01 Strict, it is just adding a few new semantic elements.

[ectoplasm]

The laws here in the UK are far more lax than in the USA

In what way are they more lax?

although the Royal Society for the Blind are being far more aggressive in prosecuting companies who fail to comply with even the most basic accessibility guidelines.

If you mean the Royal National Institute of the Blind - they don't take anyone to court over a lack of accessibility, because they don't have the legal powers to do so. They're not the Web accessibility police. They can, however, support individuals bringing a case under the DDA.

The DDA is a civil law; it gives disabled people the right to sue if they believe they have been discriminated against. There is no prosecuting.

Then one attendee mentioned the possible rise in the number of large companies that had failed to adhere to new accessibility guidelines and that the RNIB were now seriously thinking about taking designers to court for failing to ensure sites they produced for businesses were compliant.

This is nonsense. Again, the RNIB doesn't have the legal powers to do this, and it's not how the law works.

If a business has a problem with the quality of a Web designer's services, it would be up to them to seek a remedy, not the RNIB.

[Kerigirl]

I would suggest reading Jeff Croft's article Has accessibility been taken too far?. He has good points there to my opinion.

[Trent Reimer]

I would suggest reading Jeff Croft's article

Not a bad article. I agree with his assessment that modern browsers are able to do a lot of the leg work and I don't bother offering alternate stylesheets. If you need a particular style you will be much, much better off using a browser or viewer which lets you view the whole web the way you need it.

But I think we have a responsibility to use semantic markup as much as possible as it is helpful to a growing segment of users and also, frankly, to ourselves inasmuch as it results in a more logical, maintainable code base.

[KLB]

I would suggest reading Jeff Croft's article Has accessibility been taken too far?. He has good points there to my opinion.

Wow that was great reading, especially his follow up post. I didn't find any point that I disagreed with him.

For the record, I do use multiple stylesheets, which include:
main.css (for everything)
screen.css (for normal browsers)
handheld.css (for hand held devices)
printer.css (for printing pages out)

Like Jeff I don't see the purpose in providing different scaling options via CSS. As he says, this is a task better handled by the browser. I do design my site to be text browser friendly as a lowest common denominator. In a very worst case scenario, one could turn off JavaScript and CSS and still make pretty good use of my environmental chemistry site. There might be a few hiccups with my blog section of my site, but this is due to the limitations with Blogger.

[Archbob]

Since I focus on flash and interactive content, >99% of my users are not blind. And you really can't make flash accessible to the blind.

Markup is a bit different. I just make sure it works different size fonts and text don't effect it alot and make sure it works in the common browsers but I don't really care if it really validates w3 or not.

[redux]

Since I focus on flash and interactive content, >99&#37; of my users are not blind.

that's like saying "because i made sure my shop has 3 massive steps in front of the door, with no ramp, >99% of my customers are not in a wheelchair". you seem to be mixing up cause and effect here...

this sentence would be more accurate: "Since I focus on flash and interactive content, without trying to make it accessible, I'm shutting out >99% of my potential users who happen to be blind".

And you really can't make flash accessible to the blind.

you can if you put a bit of effort into it
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=accessible+flash

[KLB]

this sentence would be more accurate: "Since I focus on flash and interactive content, without trying to make it accessible, I'm shutting out >99% of my potential users who happen to be blind".

That would have deserved a plus one on rep.

Like Redux also pointed out, with a little effort, one can make flash content more accessible. With that said, one shouldn't focus on using typically non-accessible technologies like flash unless there are sound reasons for it. In my book unnecessary eye candy fluff does not qualify as a sound reason.

[Archbob]

I focus more on flash games.

Flash is the logical choice for online games because its the best format.

I'm not going to try to make a fast-paced shooting game accessible to blind people, I think thats pretty much a moot point.

I agree with accessbility -- but only on sites where logically a significant portion of the visitors are going to be completely blind.

[Tyssen]

I agree with accessbility -- but only on sites where logically a significant portion of the visitors are going to be completely blind.

How many times do people have to say it? Accessibility is not just concerned with people who are blind!

[Archbob]

How many times do people have to say it? Accessibility is not just concerned with people who are blind!

No matter how you twist it, it is going to be mainly for that crowd. If I can see just fine, why would I care how its coded, as long as it renders fine in my browser. Almost all sites I go to render just fine for me in IE, Firefox, and Opera. If it fails in one, it almost always fails in the others.

The only real argument I've seen for accessibility and standards is to help those who are visuaully disabled(IE: Blind). Although is common sense not to make a site have a white background with light yellow text, some the CSS needed for accessibility is not so common sense.

As for palms, printers and certain things like that, again it depends on a business need. Its not a "I'm just going to do it because its good and nice". No one makes business decisions based on that. If your site is visited alot by people with palms and needs to be printed out often(like mapquest), then you should. If you have a flash entertainment site that mainly focuses on games and movies, why bother making a printable version?

[Tyssen]

The only real argument I've seen for accessibility and standards is to help those who are visuaully disabled(IE: Blind).

Right....well whatever ya reckon pal.

[KLB]

No matter how you twist it, it is going to be mainly for that crowd. If I can see just fine, why would I care how its coded, as long as it renders fine in my browser. Almost all sites I go to render just fine for me in IE, Firefox, and Opera. If it fails in one, it almost always fails in the others.

This is an extremely shortsighted view of web development and almost always leads to an unnecessary and sometimes costly redo later when the world changes. Looking right in IE, Firefox and Opera does not mean the code is clean or has a proper semantic structure. When things change or a new player becomes the dominate "force" it is quite likely that the bad code will have to be fixed. A case in point is an issue I ran up against the other day. The Boston Globe's classified section was designed with only MSIE in mind and as a result there are serious coding errors that cause it not to work in other browsers. This made it impossible to post a listing when she tried the other day. She called them to complain and they said they were redesigning their classifieds to work correctly in Firefox. How much money could have been saved if they simply coded the site correctly to W3C specifications begin with.

I'm going to be very harsh, but people with the type of attitude expressed in the comment I quoted should get out of the business of developing websites for others because they are not serving their clients very well at all. They will in the end cost their clients in lost business and costly redesigns later as my Boston Globe example showed.

The typical customer does not understand the finer points of web development and it is the obligation of the web developer to use best coding practices, which includes validating to W3C specifications AND addressing accessibility issues. Maybe a fast "twitch" type of flash video game won't be used by a blind person, but it might be enjoyed by someone who can not use a mouse and thus should have keyboard alternatives. Also maybe the player can't hear or doesn't want sound so visual clues (e.g. text) should be provided as an alternative to sound.

[dunc12]

Hi

I think you can only do so much with accessibility. You can make sure that the site is accessible for the maximum amount of people without going over the top. I always check my sites to make sure they have the best possible access for the most amount of users and I think that is the best you can do.

Dunc

[Tyssen]

That's like saying, "OK, I know how to make a website now, there's no point in learning anything new or updating my skills." There's always ways you can improve your skills and knowledge and in the process, the experience for your users which can include accessibility as well.

[bloodofeve]

That's like saying, "OK, I know how to make a website now, there's no point in learning anything new or updating my skills." There's always ways you can improve your skills and knowledge and in the process, the experience for your users which can include accessibility as well.

Anyone who thinks like this in any field of endevour should throw the towel in!!
I personally think that skills upgrading is vital in web design if you are going to survive, it also make you stand out from the crowd, as some one who is passionate about what and how they carry out their work. Since joining this forum I realised that although I had a wealth of experience, I really needed to improve on some aspects of my work. I'm glad I'm carrying my learning as hopefully I will go with the times and changes that challenge us all where accessibility is concerned.